On Mar 10, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> You could do that but it's terribly dangerous. Personally, I heavily 
> prefer
> a limited form of implicit self where you say "for this variable name 
> use
> messages". So you declare a variable "foo" and instead you get #foo and
> #foo: when accessing it. This allows you to implement this "variable" 
> in any
> shape or form you want, is uniquely defined and not overly hard to
> understand.

Yes, that would be nice.  Got a changeset?